advancing modeling tools for assessment of long-term ...• for non-federal hydropower operators...
TRANSCRIPT
Advancing Modeling Tools For Assessment
of Long-Term Energy/Water Risks for
Hydropower
Colorado Convention Center, Room 103
June 27th, 2017
10:00am – 12:00pm
Project conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
with funds from the U.S. Department of Energy
User Needs Assessment conducted by Kearns & West
Agenda
TIME TOPIC
10:00-10:15 Welcome and Project Overview
10:15-10:45 Overview of Findings in User Needs
Assessment
10:45-11:45 Project Framework and Discussion
11:45-12:00 Next Steps and Closing
2
Ground Rules
• Participate in open discussion
• Listen and engage
• Be brief
• Informal workshop
• Participants in the room, raise your tent card if you wish to speak
• Participants on the webinar can verbally indicate when they wish to
speak and we will add you to the queue
3
Ground Rules for Webinar Participants
• Please do not put the line on hold!
• Verbally mention you’d like the join the queue to speak, and/or click
the “raise hand” icon in the top of the webinar window to enter the
discussion queue; click again to lower your hand after speaking
• You can also share questions using the chat pod in the bottom left of
the webinar window
• Click the “full screen” button (top right of the presentation pod) to
make the presentation bigger
4
Meeting Objectives
• Build common understanding of the project purpose and the relevant
science;
• Share findings from user feedback and gather additional feedback
• Gather input on project approach
• Provide suggestions for the project next steps (model development
and regional approach)
5
Project Overview
• AIM: Advancing Modeling Tools For Assessment of Long-Term
Energy/Water Risks for Hydropower
– Develop a scalable, physics-based modeling framework to better
understand and evaluate hydropower investments and
operational decisions in the face of altered hydrologic regimes
– Framework must be nationally applicable
– Framework consists of a collection of models that can
communicate via either direct or loose coupling
– Utilize high performance computing to enable greater spatial and
temporal resolution
6
Project Overview (continued)
• OUTCOME: Capability to model the likelihood, location, and severity
of water-temperature events under both current conditions and a
range of future scenarios to allow for evaluation of alternative
operations and infrastructure investments to mitigate such events
– Plant and system level risk
– Hydropower and thermoelectric production
– Ecosystem resources
7
User Needs Assessment Overview
• PNNL (Kearns & West) conducted a National User Needs
Assessment to better understand how models on temperature and
other water quality attributes are used in operations and
permitting/licensing and compliance to inform the model framework.
• Conducted interviews with 31 plant and system-level policy,
technical and regulatory experts from 17 organizations across all
regions of the U.S.
• Interviewed both federal and non-federal operators, and regulatory
agencies, with NGOs still to be interviewed.
8
Overview of Findings - General
• General (Hydropower Operators and Regulatory Agencies)
– Challenges exist around different water uses (e.g., habitat,
electricity generation, recreation, drinking water, etc.). It can be
challenging to agree on ways to address these.
– In many cases, the operation of the facility to maintain a below
the dam fishery is important for both regulatory agencies and
hydropower operators.
9
Regional Needs
• In the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and California (CA) the primary
water quality issue is habitat and temperature for downstream
fisheries.
• Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) is also important for many projects in the
PNW, and
• Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is a primary water quality issue in the
Southeast (SE), Northeast, and Mid-West, with temperature as a
contributing factor.
10
When Water Quality Is Addressed
• For non-federal hydropower operators water quality and temperature
for fisheries downstream are established in licensing.
• For federal hydropower operators these parameters are set in
consultation with federal and state agencies, and tribes.
• The primary action is setting flow conditions for different hydrologic
conditions (wet, dry, normal), and monitoring.
11
Compliance / Monitoring
• For non-federal operators, with license terms set, monitoring to
report on instream flows & temperature are the primary ways water
quality and temperature are addressed in compliance.
– Water availability (especially in dry conditions) species concerns,
and meeting license requirements, tend to be compliance
drivers.
– Some licenses (very few to date) have license re-openers that
FERC would exercise if license terms are not met, FERC rarely
takes this action.
• For federal operators, day-to-day monitoring and collaboration
continues through operations.
12
Modeling / Information Needs
• Some operators and regulators would appreciate information that
can inform recommendations on the placement of monitors in the
river, to better understand reverse flows and how water flows
between points (e.g., circulation patterns that occur from dam
releases).
• Higher-resolution models can inform monitoring system design
(locations, etc.) and also discrete field test design.
• Some also would value additional models and tools addressing
temperature and other water quality attributes.
13
System Upgrades
• Upgrades at hydropower facilities are driven by a number of factors,
primarily the condition of the equipment, and the potential to operate
with lower flows, if necessary, during dry conditions.
• Renewable energy credit pricing can impact a hydro operator’s
economic incentives to upgrade equipment. For non-federal
operators, upgrades tend to be considered during licensing.
14
Collaboration and Coordination
• Non-federal and federal operators interact with a number of entities
during the licensing/relicensing process or as part of ongoing federal
project operations.
• For non-federal operators, most collaboration occurs during
relicensing/licensing, while some also have work groups during
compliance. For some reports are provided, but convening work
groups does not occur.
• For federal operators with large systems in the PNW groups are
convened regularly or around specific events (e.g., critical seasons
for fisheries). Others conduct one-on-one agency consultation.
15
Forecasting
• Forecasting plays an important role in planning for many
hydropower operators.
• It will become more critical as hydrologic conditions change and
longer-term forecasting becomes more reliable (if possible).
16
Use of Models
• For non-federal operators, modeling typically occurs during licensing
when longer-term forecasting is considered. Models address
multiple years, and consider wet, dry, normal conditions.
• For non-federal operators compliance, annual models (12-month)
are used, and updated every 2-3 months. Day-to-day monitoring and
reporting occurs during compliance.
• For federal operators, both long-term planning modeling occurs as
well as modeling and monitoring to address current operations.
17
Models in Use - Examples
• Models in Use
– CE-QUAL 2E
– CE-QUAL-W2
– CHEOPS model
– HEC-ResSim
– HEC-RAS
– Riverware
– CALSIM
– PLEXOS
– eTherm
– WARMF
– DELFT 3D program (nuclear plants)
18
Model Improvements Needed
• Operators and agencies use many different models, but are looking
for something that is comprehensive and which can be used in
conjunction with existing models.
• Longer-term forecasting is important.
• Sometimes operators use proprietary models which makes access
to assumptions and understanding by the agencies challenging.
• Publicly available models would be helpful. PNNL is emphasizing
the use of Open Source models.
• For the Columbia Basin, complexity of the Basin poses challenges
for more complex models and assuring accuracy.
19
Key Themes
• Water quality in the PNW and CA is primarily focused on flows and
temperatures for downstream species, Total Dissolved Gas is also
important in the PNW. In the SE, Northeast, and Mid-West DO is the
larger issue, connected to temperature.
• Water availability (especially in dry conditions), species concerns,
and, for non-federal hydro operators, meeting license requirements,
tend to be compliance drivers.
• Forecasting will become more critical as hydrologic conditions
change and longer-term forecasting becomes more reliable (if
possible).
• For federal operators, longer-term modeling, and short-term, day-to-
day planning use models. For non-federal operators, longer-term
forecast modeling typically occurs during licensing. Models address
multiple years, and consider wet, dry, normal conditions.
• Operators and agencies use many different models, but are looking
for something that is comprehensive and which can be used in
conjunction with existing models. 20
User Needs Assessment Discussion
• Did the findings align with your perspective of:
– Industry needs?
– Regulatory responsibilities and needs?
• Would you like to clarify any of the findings?
• Were you surprised by any of the findings? Why?
• What findings do you think are most important for the success of this
project?
• Are there findings you expected to see but did not?
21
Project Framework & Discussion
DOE Energy-water-Nexus
• Advancing Modeling Tools For Assessment of Long-Term
Energy/Water Risks for Hydropower
– Develop a scalable, physics-based modeling framework to better
understand and evaluate hydropower investments and operational
decisions in the face of altered hydrologic regimes
– Framework must be nationally applicable
– Framework consists of a collection of models that can communicate
via either direct or loose coupling
– Utilize high performance computing to enable greater spatial and
temporal resolution; probabilistic analyses using multiple ensembles
• Capability to model the likelihood, location, and severity of water-
temperature events under both current conditions and a range of future
scenarios to allow for evaluation of alternative operations and
infrastructure investments to mitigate such events
– Plant and system level risk
– Hydropower and thermoelectric production
– Ecosystem resources23
Main Project Elements
Current Focus (FY17)
• Stakeholder Engagement starting with the User Needs Assessment and,
culminating in the establishment of a National Steering Committee (NSC) and a Basin
Stakeholder Group (BSG) to serve as guides throughout the project.
• An ensemble Climate Modeling to consider explicitly the uncertainty of climate
forecasts on tributary inflows and water temperature.
• Physics-based Watershed Hydrologic Modeling to simulate spatially distributed
streamflow and water temperature at fine spatial resolution throughout the channel
network.
• River and Reservoir Water Quality Modeling will use a collection of models to
simulate present and future water-temperature conditions at temporal and spatial
scales high enough for users to address environmental compliance and ecosystem
function questions.
Future (Mid-FY18)
• Biological and Habitat Assessments will conduct evaluations of potential impacts
of hydrologic change on tributary and main stem flows, water temperature, and
suitability for user-defined species and/or habitats of concern.
• The modeling framework will be used to consider different potential scenarios for
Future Hydropower Development using Hydropower Vision results to evaluate how,
under altered hydrologic conditions, water-temperature impacts change with the
addition of new hydropower plants24
Modeling Framework
• Initial framework development will utilize state-of-the-science
models capable of meeting key requirements identified in the User
Needs Assessment.
• Through advances in high resolution modeling performance, the
modeling framework will provide fine resolution information on
streamflow and water temperature at the project, tributary, and
mainstem scales.
• The framework will allow the evaluation of scenarios for current and
future hydrologic conditions for both unregulated conditions and
under current operating conditions
– Identify the probability, location, and severity of water-
temperature events
– Plant and system level risk
– Hydropower and thermoelectric production
– Ecosystem resources
• Allow evaluation of alternative operational scenarios to mitigate
adverse water quality/quantity conditions25
Modeling Framework
• End product will not be a packaged, ready to deliver software tool
• Not a tool to analyze wider power grid impacts, although you could
take the output as part of a larger effort
• The initial models are representative members of key classes of
models and can be replaced if necessary
– Model-to-model data transfer through flat files or NetCDF allowing
easier model replacement
• Any alternative operational scenarios will be developed in
collaboration with the appropriate basin user group and hydropower
owner/operators
26
Overall Modeling Approach
Regional Climate Model
With high resolution
ensembles
High-resolution, fully distributed Watershed Model
90-m tributary streamflow & temperature
Hydrodynamic
River Models
(can also interface with
USACE reservoir
operations models)27
Linking Multiple Scales
• River Basin Scale
– River basin scale 1D model (100s of miles)
– PNNL MASS1 unsteady flow model
– Impacts of dams and operations on hydraulic, thermal, and total
dissolved gas conditions
– Boundary conditions to higher-resolution river models
– Watershed model linkage - DHSVM
• River Reach-Reservoir Scale
– River reach scale 2D or 3D models (10-100s of miles)
– PNNL MASS2 parallel, unsteady, depth-averaged model
– CE-QUAL-W2 laterally-averaged, vertical distributions
– 3D reservoir-scale hydrostatic models (DELFT3D)
– Fish habitat assessments related to impacts of hydroelectric
development – hydropeaking
• Engineered Structures Scale
– Engineered structure scale (inches to 5 miles)
– 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models
– Selective withdrawal structures
– Fish passage and survival at hydroelectric dams
– Turbine design; spillways
28
Project Timeline
• FY17– Q3: Complete National Level User Needs Assessment interviews and
summarize findings
– Q3: Begin setup of watershed-river-reservoir models in initial
demonstration basin (Clearwater and Lower Snake River in ID and WA)
– Q4: Draft reports for User Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Research
Plan
• FY18– Meet with national and basin stakeholder groups at least twice annually
– Q1: Draft report on modeling framework and application
– Q2: Complete climate change ensemble runs
– Q2: Select second study basin
– Q3: Complete second study basin User Needs Assessment
– Q4: Complete model setup and calibration in second study basin
– Q4: Complete ReEDS-NHAAP disaggregation framework and identify
Hydropower Vision scenarios29
Project Timeline
• FY19– Meet with national and basin stakeholder groups at least twice annually
– Q2: Complete second basin model runs
– Q3: Complete ecosystem assessments informed by changing
hydrologic conditions modeling results in Columbia River Basin and
second basin
– Q3: Meet with NSC and CRBSG to share progress and get feedback
– Project closeout meetings with national and basin stakeholder groups
– Q4: Document modeling framework application in both basins in a
technical report
30
Climate Modeling
Ongoing climate simulations
• 6-km spatial resolution with dynamic down scaling
• Historic run (1982-2015)
• Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios
– Five future climate ensembles based on GCM boundary conditions
• 2040-2070
– GCMs used:• CESM1_CAM5
• CanESM2
• GFDL_ESM2M
• HadGEM2_ES
• MPI_ESM_MR.
• Timeline
– Complete historical and one future climate run in July, 2017
31
Modeling Hydrologic Processes
32
Fine resolution hydrologic processes drive streamflow generation
(DHSVM and spatiotemporal snow water equivalent)
● Hydrologic model needs to capture the impacts of
watershed heterogeneity
Variation in topography, meteorology, vegetation, and soils
Spatiotemporal variation in antecedent conditions and runoff
Rainfall excess, snowmelt, rain-on-snow
● Utilize current and evolving spatial data products
32
Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model
(DHSVM)
33
● Extensive use in the scientific community*
● Spatial variation in topography, meteorology, vegetation, and soils at the DEM scale
● Three-dimensional surface and subsurface flow
● Detailed canopy snow interception and release model
● Spatiotemporal simulation of rainfall excess, snowmelt, and rain-on-snow
● Open source ( http://dhsvm.pnnl.gov/ )
* most cited paper from 1965-Present in the American Geophysical Union Journal ofWeb of Science:
25th Water Resources Research (~ 15,000 papers). 33
DHSVM Riparian Shading
34
Topographic shading
Riparian vegetation factors
Tree height
Buffer width
LAI
Canopy to bank distance
Other factors
Solar geometry
Stream width and orientation
Topographic shading
Couple with one-dimensional, energy-
balance stream temperature model
(MASS1)
A tool for riparian management and associated stream
temperature mitigation 34
Improved Representation of Hydrologic Processes:
DHSVM High Performance Computing
• Build off DOE HPC efforts: Global Arrays (GA) exclusively– No direct MPI calls
– Allow “Progress Ranks” GA w/o change
• Assign rectangular domain subset to each processor
(domain decomposition)
– Each processor computes only for its subset:
• Vertical water / energy movement
• Surface water routing
• Subsurface routing
• Channel routing using MASS1 (St. Venant equations)
– Each process accumulates lateral inflow from local cell subset
– Channel segment lateral inflow is summed over all processes
– All processes route the channel network
– Root process writes output35
DHSVM: High Performance Computing
Decomposition = SIMPLE Decomposition = MASKED
– Run time corresponds to maximum number of active cells per
processor
– Uniform distribution of active cells is very important
36
DHSVM: High Performance Computing
Decomposition = STRIPEX Decomposition = STRIPEY
37
Test Case: Clearwater River Basin, Idaho
• Area: 9,420 sq. mi.
• Grid Size: 90-m
• Active Grid cells: ~3,000,000
• Total Stream Number: 2,647
• Total Stream Segments: 79,462
38
DHSVM: High Performance Computing
• ~ 3,000,000 DHSVM cells in Clearwater Basin (90-m grid)
• Runtime reduction from ~ 650 min to ~ 12 min (2-year simulation)
• Examining load balance and other factors for further reductions in run
time39
Integration with PNNL MASS1 1D
Hydrodynamic Model
40
Integration of PNNL MASS1 Hydrodynamic
Model into DHSVM
Hydrodynamics – One Dimensional Model
• Provides the skeletal system for watershed and river basin
channel network and hydropower projects
– Fast. Enables probabilistic analyses
– Routes water and temperature to boundaries of higher-resolution 2D, 3D
models where that refinement is needed
• Unsteady flow in branched channel systems
– Physics-based model
– Mass and momentum conservation
– Subcritical and supercritical flow
• One-dimensional, cross-sectional averaged outputs
– Discharge, stage, temperature, total dissolved gas, and other constituents
• Hydraulic structures
– Dams, weirs, culverts
• Lateral inflow/outflow to channel sections
• Can also use standalone (without DHSVM)
• Open Source ( https://github.com/pnnl/mass1 ) 41
Integration of PNNL MASS1 Hydrodynamic
Model
Water Temperature and Quality
• Unsteady fate and transport of constituents
– General transport numerical scheme (existing)
– Any number of constituents (new)
• Water temperature
– Atmospheric energy exchange (existing)
– Topographic and riparian shading (new)
– Automated calibration (new)
• Other water quality parameters as needed
– Dissolved oxygen (new)
– Total dissolved gas (TDG) fate and transport (existing)
• Constituent relationships with temperature used to compute internally
• Saturation pressures
• Partial pressures
• thermodynamics
• Atmospheric gas exchange driven by wind forcing (based on relative
pressures)42
Integration of PNNL MASS1 Hydrodynamic Model
Examples of Annual Water Temperature Simulations in
Columbia River
43
Example of a risk-based assessment:
Water Temperature in the Lower Snake River
• Current project goals
– Scale up this type of analysis to an entire river basin
– Increased simulation speed enables multiple ensembles of future
hydrology-meteorology scenarios
• Long-term 35-year period from 1960-1995
• Historical main stem discharge, tributary discharge, inflow temperatures, and
meteorology
• Current and pre-hydrosystem bathymetry
• Stored temperature output for probabilistic analysis
– Daily average
– Daily maximum
– Option for other hydraulic, water quality, habitat variables
• Water elevation/depth, bed shear stress, velocity, etc
• Same strategy used for Grant County PUD in the mid-Columbia
– Priest Rapids Project FERC relicensing
– 401 Certification
• Perkins WA, and MC Richmond. 2001. Long-term, One-dimensional Simulation of Lower Snake River
Temperatures for Current and Unimpounded Conditions . PNNL-13443, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-13443.pdf 44
Example product:
50% exceedance mean daily temperature
45
Initial Model Test Watershed and
River-Reservoir Case
• Case for testing model improvements
– Use a subset of the Columbia River Basin
• System
– Watersheds supplying the Dworshak Reservoir (USACE operated) on
the Clearwater River in ID
• High head storage reservoir with selective temperature withdrawal structure
– Clearwater and Lower Snake River system in ID and WA
– Multiple run of river reservoirs (4) on Lower Snake (USACE operated)
• Rationale
– Experience and data. Saves time and $$.
• PNNL has applied 1D, 2D, 3D river-reservoir models in this system
• Large amount of water temperature data in the watershed and good
monitoring in the reservoirs
• Weather data
• Bathymetric data for river-reservoir models
• Important question: what could be availability of cooler water in the
future for temperature management operations at Dworshak?46
Clearwater Test Basin
• Large amount of streamflow and
water temperature data
• Appropriate size for test of high
performance computing
– 9,420 sq. mi.
– Modeled at 90-m resolution
– 3,000,000 model grid cells
47
Stream channels – NorWeST data archive
• Full Year Gauges
• August Only Gauges
48
Lower Snake River Hydraulic Characteristics Final Report
2.1
2.0 Background
Construction of numerous hydroelectric dams within the Snake River basin has altered the thermal
and hydraulic regime of the river for hundreds of kilometers. According to the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), altered water temperatures and river discharges associated with operation of these dams,
plus habitat loss and high mortality from harvest activities, were found to threaten and impact survival of
fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin (NMFS 2004). Upper Snake River reaches near Marshing,
Idaho, that were once historical spawning and rearing habitats were eliminated by the construction of
Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams (Groves and Chandler 1999; Connor et al. 2002). Juvenile
fall Chinook salmon currently must migrate through kilometers of lower-velocity reservoirs instead of a
higher-velocity free-flowing river to reach the Pacific Ocean. The NMFS was petitioned in the 1990s to
list Snake River fall Chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and from 1992 until today, the
species status has been considered threatened (NMFS 1992).
The lower Snake River is today a series of reservoirs formed by Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower
Monumental, and Ice Harbor dams (see Figure 2.1). These dams, built in the 1960s and 1970s by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), have created lower Snake River conditions drastically different
from those under which indigenous anadronmous fall Chinook salmon evolved. Alterations in flow
velocity and water temperature due to existence and operation of the dams are difficult to quantify except
from limited datasets such as those of Mains and Smith (1964). Their data, collected during the spring
and summer of 1954 and 1955, show that the free-flowing currents at Central Ferry (approximately
halfway between Little Goose and Lower Granite dams) were much higher than reservoir conditions
experience today and ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 m/s (1.4 to 4.8 ft/s) at low discharge (476 m3/s or 16,800 cfs)
to 2.3 to 3.3 m/s (7.7 to 10.8 ft/s) at high discharge (5530 m3/s or 195,400 cfs).
Figure 2.1. Location of the Clearwater River, Snake River, and lower Snake River dams
Clearwater and Lower Snake River-
Reservoir System
49
6/27/2017 50
Questions?
Framework Discussion and Feedback
Hydropower Energy/Water Risks Advisory
Group
• We ask those invited here along with other select operators, agency,
and NGO interests to continue to provide advice as the project
evolves.
• This National Advisory Group can help keep the project focused on
a framework that is nationally applicable.
• We will keep in touch through workshops/ webinars held once or
twice a year (~2 hours each) and emails/phone calls, as appropriate.
52
Next Steps
• Incorporate feedback from today’s meeting into model framework
development.
• Regular status updates – PNNL will seek to keep everyone informed
as the project progresses via email and meetings, where
appropriate.
• Columbia Basin Stakeholder Group will be formed in late October
2017.
• Specific follow-up for more detailed information from members of
this National Advisory Group.
53
Questions?
Thank You!
Contacts:• Marshall Richmond (Project Manager),
• Mark Wigmosta (Principal Investigator),
• TJ Heibel (User Needs Assessment Lead),
55
Extras
Example Tools and Products
• Numerical Models (PNNL-developed codes, open source community codes, and
commercial codes)
– Climate models
• Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model: numerical weather
prediction system designed to serve both atmospheric research and
operational forecasting needs
– Watershed models
• DHSVM: spatially distributed, physics-based, continuous simulation of water
and energy transfer
– 1D, 2D, 3D models for river, reservoir, and estuary applications
• Unsteady river hydraulics, water quality
– Water velocity, depth, temperature
• 1D – MASS1 ; HEC-RAS
• 2D – MASS2 (depth-ave); CE-QUAL-W2 (lateral ave)
• 3D – DELFT3D (hydrostatic)
– 3D non-hydrostatic models for complex engineered systems
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes – STAR-CCM+
• Forebays and tailraces of dams, intake systems, fish passage structures
– Hybrid, Multiscale, Coupled modeling
• 1D model feeding boundary conditions to local 3D or 2D models
– Use results for ecosystem assessments